This article has a comment by a guy called Fred Kite that neatly summed up the reason for feminism's success:

Feminism is not the problem here. Its proponents have neither the brains nor the talent to advance this far on their own - high-status elite managerial men have allowed this to happen.

Men run the world. Men always have. Just a small number of alphas though. But that white technocratic political elite realised that in feminism they had found an unbeatable tool for cowing and demoralising lower status males who will always be potential usurpers.

Feminists are no problem to high status bosses. Women are wired to treat them with adoration and give them a pass whatever the transgression - see Bill Clinton (or even George W Bush being invited to slap a female gymnast on the rear "for luck." If a low status male suggested that he try that he'd be lucky to escape with just being fired.)

Even feminist women are totally loyal to their male bosses, and reserve their wrath for peers and subordinates.

Feminism is part of the new class war whereby the right wing authoritarian elite have found they can use left wing dogmas to shore up their power. That is why elite managerial white alpha men like Tony Blair, David Cameron and Brown are so keen on it - it does not threaten them.

Feminism has finally achieved what Mrs Thatcher could never quite do - destroy workplace solidarity and ensure that collective action is largely a thing of the past. And it did not take billy-club wielding strike-breakers or labor camps. It took a generation of victimhood obsessed, unhinged females, who knew they could get away with saying and doing anything.

It is a theory I've long since subscribed too; if the Wimmin's Movement had been orchestrated and acted upon by women solely - and every man was either neutral or dead against it - those whining lezzers would have been bitch-slapped back into the kitchen so hard they'd smash through the wall and into the dining room with their burning bras round their neck.

Yet they seem to have been rather successful in inflicting their shitty ideology onto Western Society; and it does seem rather suspicious that virtually every man in mainstream-politics licks the unholy arses of feminisms. David Cameron forever being associated in my mind with his leadership acceptance speech when he bemoaned the horrors of the lack of women in his party, thus losing the vote of many men at a single stroke. The ponce.

Then there's the Labour Party in the U.K. As it's name suggests, it was meant to speak for the common man, the worker. The guy who does dirty and dangerous work to try to support himself and his wife and kids. The families who are almost on the breadline. The powerless. Now it's just morphed into something that rubs the faces of common men into shit, enforces feminist ideology, encourages single-motherhood, taxes the workers to support the lazy and feckless, and as side-project manages to tear the shit out of British culture in the name of diversity. What the fuck happened? All they wanted was power, and what better way to wield power than to sideline men by encouraging their removal from families, and make women subservient to the government by hooking them on benefits and governmental support.

Feminists and their powerful male allies seem to have failed to have taken one thing into account; when someone is made redundant, they don't work any more. And us men have been declared redundant.

This is what is happening in British Society and, no doubt, in other Feminist infected nations. In Britain there are millions of young men who don't work, who aren't in full-time education, who do fuck all, who basically don't have any interest or motive in contributing to society. And who can blame them? They've been declared redundant. They're not needed. Or, rather, they are needed, but only as wage-slaves to be taxed and, from time to time, as cannon-fodder to be fed to enemy cannons whilst the elite and their ho's relax. And even many guys (like me) who do work only work the bare minimum, avoid marriage and other traps to transfer what wealth we have to women, and who plot to emigrate. Or just vent our spleens on blogs.

In Britain, a single woman can nip to a sperm clinic, get a sample, get pregnant and then get on welfare, the idea of a father - or a step-father, or any man whatsoever - being part of a family now officially a 'sexist' idea and one to be rejected. In the workplace, women get priority in promotions and then get to all but choose their hours (usually very few) if/when they have kids. And if a guy works, he'll be taxed to buggery to pay for hordes of single mothers, effectively forcing him to pay for other men's offspring.

"Why bother?", sayeth us men in our almighty multitude. "Fuck this," we add.

If there's a war, many men won't fight to save this country. I fucking won't. Why bother? Most of us men don't have any attachment or any investment in what this country has become. Given that you'll never hear a feminist cry for 'equality' when it comes to the draft, why the fuck would any man be willing to get his head blown off to protect some whining, ungrateful, abortion-happy women and the powerful men, all safe at home? Fuck that. We might as well join the invaders and wreck some stuff for laughs.

The gravy train of feminism won't last long. What women call 'independence' requires a hell of a lot of funding; the single-mothers on benefits, the working mothers who barely work at all and consume taxes with their 'free' daycare, the Women's Shelters, the NHS-funded abortions for slags who can't keep their legs shut, the Ministry of Bloody Women, the endless non-jobs in the female-dominated civil-service...it all needs paying for through taxes. Taxes predominantly paid for by men, who increasingly shrink from the work-force thinking; 'Why bother?'

Similarly, it is men who do the real-work; refining oil, building buildings, logging trees, laying roads. And fighting wars of course. Rendered redundant, devoid of any incentive or investment in life, many men will stop doing this, and the powerful men and their harem of 'independent' wimmin will be left terrified in a society with no proper work-force and dwindling tax-reserves.

And a hell of a lot of seriously annoyed men with nothing to lose.

Maybe that's a bit of a nihilistic vision. But I can't see things getting any better, and the one thing that can keep us guys who, individually, have very relatively little or no power in society is that, collectively, we keep it going. So we can make it grind to a halt with very little effort at all.

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

The article itself is mildly interesting, but more worthy of my infinite derision are a couple of wimmin's comments; one within it, one beyond it.

But Kim Gandy, president of the National Organisation for Women, said: “They have a men’s studies department: It’s called ’history’, ’politics’, ’business’. It’s the entire university. It’s all about men’s studies. It’s like asking why there isn’t a White Studies department.”

Okay, for starters, Muzzz Gandy, you're the prez of a bunch of man-hating fucking lezzers - closeted and otherwise - so you're opinion is clearly not going to be (a) objective or (b) logical.

Secondly, 'history', 'politics' and 'business' departments cannot be regarded as "Men's Studies" in the same way "Women's Studies" is because:

They do not focus on men. They focus on the study at hand.

If men feature prominently amongst the individuals who crop up in those studies, it's because they founded and put into effect the primary theories of them. Women could have done so, but they either didn't feel the need, or couldn't (oops, controversial!)

They are founded on either proven facts, or theories that are rigorously tested and questioned, not on the whacked out ideas of a demented ideology like feminism that is clearly demented on the grounds that it makes 'the personal political'

These subjects teach, they don't indoctrinate

If you disagree with a theory the lecturer in a history or business class personally holds, you may raise your hand and say so, and get a fair hearing, not a scowl and an accusation you're a traitor or rapist (if you're a female or male respectively) as in Wimmin's Studies

Ask a Business Studies or History professor what the point of his/her subject is, and what application it has in the real world, and - so long as you ask politely - they'll explain why, give examples, and be open and even welcoming to any sensible objections. Ask the same question to a Women's Studies "professor" and, no matter how polite you may be, expect to be accused of having a small cock, of being a virgin, of hating women, etc, etc.

And why the reference to a 'White Studies' department. Why the fuck do feminists try and drag race into everything?

Now onto some comment from some bitch appropriately named 'Nancy':

This "man" forgets that women in America STILL make far less money than men, STILL are far less likely to get hired-promoted than a man! The lawyer sounds like a selfish, neolithic neo-conservative, to me.

He probably wants to make blacks sit at the back of the bus again, too.

Note the word man being in inverted commas, implying no Real Man (C) questions women's superiority complex or right to spew hatred.

Then there's the whining that women still - sorry; STILL - make less money than men. Yeah, guess why; that's because - on average - they don't deserve to. Yet, addicted to the victim-mantra of modern Western Fucking Women, it's all boo-hoo-hoo, evil men being evil to women, and so on and so forth.

I personally make less money than Richard Branson, Bill Gates or Alan Sugar. Is this fair? Sure it is. They work harder than me, took more risks than me, were more innovative than me (or better at marketing crap products; that's a matter of opinion of course) and furthermore are older than me so had more time to earn money. On top of that, I only care about making enough money to keep going; I wouldn't mind a huge mansion but I don't want one enough to bust my balls 100-hours a week for years on end to get one, as these guys did.

It's not a case that it's unfair or unjust that these millionaires earn more money than me; we just have different priorities and different abilities.

Yet, to femshits like Nancygirl there, it's all dreadfully unfair that men dare to work hard enough to earn more money than women, or to get these frightfully unjust promotions, and that - in her and other feminist's opinions - this money needs to be stolen from the labours of men and handed to women, and men should be shoved out of high-ranking jobs to make way for women, regardless of whether they're equally qualified, or even can be bothered to turn up for more than a few hours a day.

Finally, in her last sentence of crazy shaming language, she brings in race.

Yes, indeed, it seems that objecting to feminists getting carte blanche to indoctrinate young women into some messed up, illogical, amoral cult of man-hating claptrap on University campuses means that - by some bizarre form of logic known only to feminists - you advocate racial apartheid against black people.

I get a headache just trying to figure out how feminist's trains of thought work (although - to extend the rail-based metaphor a bit further than necessary - I dare say they usually end with multi-carriage pile-ups with lots of confused wailing.)

Give it a rest you pampered femorrhoids. Go and put another Starbucks on your daddy's credit-card, sit quietly in the corner surrounded by shopping bags and gulp down a big frothy cup of shut-the-fucking-fuck-up.

Thursday, 14 August 2008

The silliest thing - and there are many - about feminists is their constant use of the word 'privilege' and hurling it at men. Why? Just because some of the most powerful people in the world happen to be men?

They only represent about 0.0001% of men. I certainly don't have any power. Yet because I'm the same sex as those in charge, I'm 'privileged'.

Furthermore, most men 'in charge' care more about women than men. David Cameron, the Conservative Party Leader, bleated in his opening speech about how horrified he was at the lack of women in his party.

How many times have you seen a woman in power give one iota of a damn about men? Never. Yet powerful men do, because it's often in their interests (in the grand scale of things, feminism wouldn't have gotten so far as to name itself if there weren't men to support it. But there were; the Socialists, for whom the destruction of the family and neutering of men was vital to their totalitarian vision, and - at the opposite end of the spectrum - Capitalists, who would be raking it in with the female half of the population joining the male half in wage-slavery.) It's not in the interests of the majority of men though, or women for that matter.

Yet feminists still declare us men - even the most humble of us, like me - as being somehow Almighty Privileged Man-Bastards just because we share the same downstairs plumbing as the tiny number of individuals in charge upstairs.

That's as stupid as a non-British person assuming all of us Brits are privileged on the basis of the luxury the Royal Family are enshrouded in.

King Idaho IV checks his e-mail

"Gee, all you limeys are so Goddamn privileged, with your big castles, your retinue of servants and your Crown Jewels!"

That sounds silly, but this is basically what feminists do all the time. A tiny, tiny proportion of men run big companies and governments - and invariably care more for women than men anyway - yet us men are expected to never, ever criticise feminism and women in general on the basis that we're all living privileged and luxurious lives, no matter what our actual fucking lives are like and no matter what daily shittiness assails us, and despite the fact that 99.9% of us men have as little power as women do, if not less.

It's the easy way out of an argument I guess. Feminists hate arguments. That would force them to realise the emptiness and stupidity of their ideology and make them realise they've devoted their miserable lives and their few brain-cells to something that's as silly and as pointless as a frog in a fez. It's so much easier to dismiss someone who questions them as a loser, a woman-hater, gay, or just someone who is 'unable to see how privileged he is' - which is connected to the accusations flung at non-feminist women; 'you don't see how oppressed you are due to Patriarchal brainwashing.' See? No logic, facts or even common sense required! Hooray for feminist tactics!

Given that women live longer than men, they're allowed to denounce us as 'bastards' and 'scum' whilst we're silenced into submission for implying they're not perfect, that they get pretty much automatic custody of the kids (and the house, furniture, savings, etc) in divorce cases, are allowed Women's Studies, have the right to kill a man's baby and call it 'the right to choose', have their own fucking government department, I think women have got a fucking cheek squealing 'you over-privileged bastard' should any of us guys dare object to their cat-like mewling and say 'Hang on a fucking minute...'

I was walking down the high-street the other day and before me was a big-bottomed woman.

I know she had a big bottom because most of it was on display.

Now I'm not sneering contemptously at this woman for having a fat arse. I'm of the libertarian belief that one's arse is one's own, and one can let it be as fat as one desires.

No, I'm sneering contemptously at her for having jeans that hung almost a third of the way down the derriere in question. Two great big spotty cheeks jiggling menacingly at me, like two acne-ridden Zeppelins engaging in frottage behind a low wall made of denim. Beneath a silvery tramp-stamp.

She was pushing a pushchair too, and the kid was crying and wailing, and she seemed to think (incorrectly) that the best way to comfort her child was to take the cigarette out of her mouth and scold the child for being 'stupid.'

It's fair to assume she's a single-mother on benefits; after all, it was noon on a weekday and she was strolling around the shops, and no father was in sight. The kid was about two and, although it was hard to tell, I don't think she was beyond her teens.

My initial disgust grew greater when I realised that the taxes that are taken from the salary I earn at the shitty job I was briefly taking a break from at the time no doubt supported this fucking wretch.

The only reason a modern teenager is likely burn her bra is to emulate underwear-dodging celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Our daughters are in dire need of lessons in women's rights, says a feminist author.

...

We need feminism more than ever, not just to address all the myths that have grown up - we're still a long way from living in an equal society, despite girls' much-vaunted success over boys in exams - but to counter the pervasive influence of the commercial sex industry on young women.

How dim-witted are feminists?

They don't even know their own movement, or it's aims and 'achievements.'

Feminism is the primary reason young women are pretty much viewed as sex-objects. Beforehand, in the Evil Old Patriarchy, young women were taught modesty and discouraged from sleeping around and indeed urged to only sleep with their husband and only after the wedding.

Then came the fembots who encouraged young women to whore about until their twats split, and woe betide any man who tutted in disgust at the 'loose women', who would be condemned by feminist as a prudish misogynist who wanted to restrict women's 'sexual freedom' and who probably had a small dick too.

Girls used to be pretty much groomed for marriage, in order that a man would view her as a potential companion for life, a devoted housekeeper and a good mother to their children. Feminism urged women to get all bitchy and angry, to sneer at the idea of doing anything that constituted 'domestic slavery', and to have abortions and shove the kids they didn't have killed in daycare centres, and to hell with any such thing as 'fathers rights' - children now belong to women.

Having largely become too bitter and angry to make good companions, unwilling and unable to run a home (but still wanting a man to bring home the bacon - and the SUV, plasma-screen telly, expensive dresses, etc) and not the sort of women you'd figure would make good mothers to their children, men see sex as the only real thing many young women have to offer. And they'll happily offer it before marriage too. After all, they're liberated grrrls.

So men increasingly just see women as sex-objects, because more and more, thanks to feminism, sex is all they have left to offer.

Yet feminists can't seem to see the results of their own fucked up ideology and it's insane application to the Western World. Girls are acting like sluts, so it must be because feminism hasn't gone far enough, they think, when in fact it's because of feminism. Duh!

Feminism can't let go of women's monopoly on victimhood, and still screech on about wimmin's issues and problems, even though many are actually thanks to feminism. Take the bemoaning about how single mothers and their kids are more likely to live in poverty, especially in harsh economic times. Well of course they're going to be in poverty, if they don't have a man as the breadwinner! But it was feminists who encouraged the removal of men from families. Don't blame us for the effects of your social experiment you daft lezzers.

In the article, the author complains about young girls being forced into prostitution. Sure, I'll agree that that's really shitty for the girls, but does she think for one moment about these girl's family background? I very much doubt if girls raised in a two-parent family with a big strong father there to protect her are the ones being lured into the sex-industry. More likely it's the girls from dysfuctional (read: no father) 'familes.' Once again, fatherless families was the aim - and the result - of feminism, and now the problems caused by fatherless families are rampant, those who encouraged this not only refuse to accept blame but still insist they know what to do about it.

Whether it's single mothers in poverty, girls being viewed as sex-objects and the rise of slut-culture, or the increasing numbers of women unable to find a man stupid enough to marry them, feminism is the primary cause of the problem, yet once again the answer to this problem - according to feminists - is more fucking feminism.

The author also comments:

"I'm amazed at how much we achieved - many feminist ideas, such as the right to maternity leave, have become mainstream - but I'm also horrified by the casual misogyny of 21st-century life. Since my book, Misogynies, was first published in 1989, it has got much worse. "

There's no evidence supplied by her to imply misogyny is getting 'worse' - after all, what do facts and evidence matter to a feminist? - but she may have a point. I do notice that, whilst men my age tend to be somewhat apathetic towards women (which to many women is the same as hatred), a lot of young men tend to be outrightly hostile towards women.

Yet if this is the case, feminism is to blame in a big way. What the fuck did feminists think would happen to generations of boys raised by man-hating bitches in schools, raised by single-mothers who often don't hide their whorishness from their kids, seeing stories of ridiculous divorce rulings in favour of women and surrounded by media-images and politician's drivel that implies men are worthless and women are virtual goddesses, beyond criticism? Why, you'll have a generation of men who don't really care much for women, and may even think 'Hey, if I'm supposedly a woman-hating brute and total shit, I guess I might as well act that way!'

Some woman in the comments sneers:

these last few comments illustrate that men still do and will always hate women.

Actually, men used to love women. And many still do. Love is what drove men to work to provide for a woman, to die on battlefields to save not just an individual woman but the mass of women in his invaded country. Not any more. Fuck that. Provide for yourselves, pay your own fucking mortgages, and fuck off if you think we're getting shot to save you and 'your' children.

Feminists indulge heavily in projection. They hated men and presumed we all hated women back. Given that contempt has an alarming ability to boomarang back, feminism and it's incessant hatred of us men - and it's political lackeys eagerness to make men socially redundant (except as tax-mines in peacetime and cannon-fodder in wartime) and remove any investment men have in society - has made many men either contemptous of - or at least apathetic towards - women. Oops! How ironic.

Yet feminists just think that the best thing to do is to continue to force their twisted ideology on kids even more, even though this is the same ideology that helped turned girls into sex-objects and helps foster resentement and contempt amongst boys towards the girls. Yeah, well done grrls, great logic there.

Furthermore, like any feminist, she makes a living through 'highlighting' and drivelling on about misogyny. Of course she's going to claim it's getting worse! The same way domestic-violence charities will never say that domestic-violence is decreasing; their livelihood would be over otherwise.

A feminist in a world without misogyny - real or imagined - is a nothing but a woman who has to get a proper fucking job.

Here's one last sentence that caught my attention:

Young women need to know that there's nothing wrong with liking clothes, shoes and boys (or other girls), but they're also in urgent need of a language and ethics that allow them to be themselves.

Well, yes, there's nothing wrong with liking clothes and shoes, so long as you accept that there's nothing wrong with being a fucking airhead with no life outside shopping.

More significant is the latter half of her sentence, whereby the brainwashing nature of feminism is made clear; she talks of giving girls 'language and ethics' that allows them to 'be themselves.' In other words, the 'language and ethics' of feminism.

Feminists will only allow girls (and boys for that matter) to 'be themselves' if it corresponds to what feminists want them to be.

And never mind that feminism is, at it's heart, nothing but a hate movement which has caused (probably irreversible) damage to those societies that didn't violently stomp it out as soon as possible.

The comments at the article (and this surprisingly similar one today) show feminist's hatred of dissenting opinions perfectly; howls of anger that any man dare criticise feminism. Indeed, feminism's emptiness and stupidity is personified in the fact that those who follow it never listen to - and logically break down - criticism. Knowing there is no logical merit to their ideology (and logic is an evil Patriarchal tool of oppression anyway) they have no weapons to fling other than insults and abuse. Even calling someone 'anti-feminist' seems be classified as some sort of shameful label to be flung around, even though being anti-feminist is a label any sane man should any embrace.

Some women even try to backpedal, insisting feminism was about equality. The author of the article even claims feminism was about human rights. Yeah right! Maybe it was concerned with the rights (ideally without responsibility) of a certain 50% of humans, but not the other 50%.

Most pathetic of all are the many accusations that any man who criticises feminism is a misogynist, even though feminism is just an ideology, and therefore - like any ideology - has no immunity from being questioned and rejected, or even loathed. Claiming that anyone who criticises feminism hates all women is as absurd as saying that anyone who criticises Maoism hates all Chinese people.

By its very nature of being a hate-filled ideology closely linked to Marxism, feminism allows no questioning or individuality. If it's taught in primary/elementary schools you can imagine any boy who maybe questions the teacher ('Miss...I mean, Muzzz?I don't think it's true that I want to rape women just because I'm a boy, and I'm pretty sure my dad doesn't regularly beat up my mum.') being marked down or even reported for counselling for 'inappropriate behaviour.'

The only thing dumber than the first, second and third wave feminists who fucked-up our society in the first place is a fourth wave one who thinks that more feminism will magically unfuck-up everything.